May 29, 2013

Most Americans have probably heard about the "boom" in natural gas, with U.S. production up by one-third since 2005. Besides historically low natural gas prices, one consequence is that companies like Exxon Mobil are now pushing the federal government to approve permits for more than 20 liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. Big fossil fuel's goal is to sell U.S. natural gas overseas, where it can fetch a higher price. Is that really such a good idea?

Future generations will be incredulous that we ever debated the wisdom of increasing LNG exports. The permits that the Department of Energy is considering would export as much as 45 percent of current U.S. gas production. Once the terminals are built, trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership currently being negotiated could make it difficult to impossible to limit how much gas we actually export. The result will be higher domestic prices as well a lot more drilling for natural gas -- primarily by fracking.

So far, the Department of Energy has failed to consider the environmental and health consequences of such a radical increase in natural gas drilling. They really should, because both the potential risks and the known harms are enormous. Here are five environmental reasons why LNG exports are a very bad idea:

1. The current shale-gas rush has already had serious effects on our air quality. As the Department of Energy's own Shale Gas Subcommittee reported: "Significant air quality impacts from oil and gas operations in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Texas are well documented, and air quality issues are of increasing concern in the Marcellus region (in parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York)."

Because of natural gas drilling, parts of rural Wyoming now have smog worse than that of downtown Los Angeles. This air pollution doesn't just spoil the view -- it's been linked to respiratory disease, heart failure, and premature death.

2. Increased fracking will endanger and further strain increasingly scarce water resources. A single fracking well can require up to 5 million gallons of water. And because that water is contaminated during the fracking process, most of it must be considered toxic waste and can never be used for human consumption again. Meanwhile, contamination of surface and groundwater sources from spills and leaks remains an ever-present risk.

3. Intense gas production can transform entire regions -- and not for the better. We're talking hundreds of thousands of new wells, along with a vast infrastructure of roads, pipelines, and support facilities. Pennsylvania's forests have already been decimated by fracking wells -- we could see that pattern repeated from New York to Monterey.

4. Higher natural gas prices could help revive the fortunes of the declining coal-fired power industry. At a time when we should be working to move as fast as possible beyond all fossil fuels, burning more coal is beyond crazy -- it's suicidal.

5. Which brings us to what may be the most important reason of all why we shouldn't ramp up gas production so we can export LNG: Increased use of any fossil fuel is the wrong move if we want to limit climate disruption. The International Energy Agency estimates that to have a shot at keeping global warming within a range that is potentially survivable, we need to keep two-thirds of our known oil, coal, and natural gas reserves in the ground.

LNG export terminals are the latest example of how the Obama administration's "all of the above" energy approach is misguided and fundamentally at odds with its stated priority of fighting climate change. How can we justify taking a huge additional percentage of U.S. fossil fuel reserves and selling them overseas for profit at the expense of countless future generations? Then again, people once made economic arguments for perpetuating the slave trade and other morally repugnant enterprises. They were profoundly wrong. Let's not give history a reason to say the same of us.

May 17, 2013

Few of us will ever venture past the 60-mile boundary that
separates Earth and outer space. If you do, though, you're likely to experience
something known as "the overview effect" -- a cognitive shift in how
you perceive our planet. Political boundaries disappear, and our atmosphere,
which seemed like a boundless expanse of blue from the ground, is suddenly
revealed to be a paper-thin shield between life and the dark void of space.

Although the notion of sending Congress, the president, and
every other decision maker into outer space has some appeal, it's not exactly
the most practical thing. Yet the climate crisis demands the same kind of
cognitive shift experienced by astronauts: We cannot let that CO2 ppm
number keep ticking up, and the best way to stop it is to stop burning fossil
fuels and replace them with renewable energy as fast as we can.

Unfortunately, although President Obama has spoken
eloquently about the climate crisis, the energy policies of his administration too
often say "business as usual," not "cognitive shift." Here
are just three examples:

First, on the same day that the 400-ppm milestone was
reported, the administration released its
National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Ironically, although the report
correctly notes that the Arctic will be severely affected by climate
disruption, it also includes talking points that could have come straight out
of the Bush administration, including this sentence:

Continuing to responsibly develop Arctic oil and gas
resources aligns with the United States "all of the above" approach
to developing new domestic energy sources, including renewables, expanding oil
and gas production, and increasing efficiency and conservation efforts to
reduce our reliance on imported oil and strengthen our nation's energy
security.

Wrong. Although the parenthetical nod to renewables is nice,
any "all of the above" policy that furthers our dependence on oil and
gas doesn't strengthen our energy security. Instead, it increases our climate
insecurity. As Shell Oil learned the hard way, there are many good reasons why it's a bad idea to
attempt offshore drilling in the Arctic. We only need this one, though: If we
are serious about addressing the climate crisis, then oil under the Arctic
Ocean needs to stay there.

Example #2 -- Just yesterday, the Bureau of Land Management
released new proposed regulations for fracking natural gas on public lands. The
new rules are disappointing for many reasons: Drillers won't be required to
disclose what chemicals they're using, there is no requirement for baseline
water testing, and there are no setback requirements to govern how close to
homes and schools drilling can happen. Once again, though, the policy documents
an even bigger failure to grasp a fundamental principle: If we're serious about
the climate crisis, then the last thing we should be doing is opening up still
more federal land to drilling and fracking for fossil fuels.

Lastly, of course, there is the issue of tar-sands crude and
the Keystone XL pipeline. I've written many times
about the risks of both, but the bottom line is that allowing tar sands
extraction to expand will undermine the progress that has been made to reduce
carbon pollution elsewhere in the economy.

The good news: We still have time to act. Through
clean-energy technology, smart policies, and responsible leadership, we can
spare future generations the "worst-case scenario" for climate
disruption. To make that happen, though, the biggest change has to occur on the
inside first -- a cognitive shift away from the fossil-fuel world we've known
our entire lives.

We can't literally escape gravity to stare in awe at our
amazingly beautiful planet and suddenly comprehend what's at stake -- but we
can make the journey in our hearts and minds. Once we do -- whether we're
sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office or on a back-porch swing in Salina,
Kansas -- we can see the better world that lies beyond coal, oil, and gas.

May 01, 2013

If all goes well, my parents will finally get to return home
today. They live on the New Jersey Shore, on Chadwick Beach Island, next to
Barnegat Bay. My brother, sisters, and I all grew up in the house, which my dad
built with my uncle, almost fifty years ago.

Six months ago, Sandy took it apart.

By the time it hit the eastern seaboard, Sandy was an
unusual hybrid of a post-tropical cyclone and an upper level low system.
"Superstorms" like Sandy could develop without the influence of
climate disruption, but warmer ocean temperatures and a shifting jet stream
unquestionably have increased the odds. The scariest thing about Sandy is that
such a freak of weather may no longer be so freakish.

A new norm of extreme weather is a daunting prospect. In
Sandy's case, the damage to my childhood home was part of the worst U.S.
natural disaster since hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- much more than $50
billion in damages and at least 72 deaths. But Sandy also destroyed something
intangible -- our complacency. No longer can we assign the consequences of
climate disruption to some distant future. When Sandy struck, the future rose
with the sea and smashed into us head on. The question it left behind was this:
What do we do about it?

For the past 100 days, Sierra Club members and supporters
have answered that question loudly and clearly. We gathered in Washington,
D.C., for the largest climate rally in history. We held town hall meetings and
grassroots rallies across the country. And we helped send more than a million messages
to Barack Obama -- telling him that we want bold action on climate disruption.

For his part, the president answered Sandy's challenge by
talking about the climate crisis in his strongest words yet, both in the State
of the Union and his inaugural address.

The president's words were welcome, but words will not be
enough. Here are five critical actions we need him to take:

Reject
the toxic Keystone XL pipeline.

Protect
our water from coal plant pollution.

Close
loopholes on fracking and protect our wildlands from oil and gas
development.

Finalize
strong standards for cleaner tailpipe emissions.

Move
forward with standards against industrial pollution.

Each of these actions is within President Obama's power
right now. If he's serious about addressing climate disruption, not one of them
is optional.

Meanwhile, we have to keep our own voices raised. If you
haven't added yours yet -- you can do it here.
Together, we will move forward on climate -- and we need our president to lead
the way.